Equivalents (was Re: Multilanguage alt/title)

At 19:27 -0700 UTC, on 2007-08-29, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

>> On Aug 29, 2007, at 7:41 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

[... Re <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ObjectSupport>]

>>> Did you find any problems in Safari's support for the OBJECT
>>> element for images? I don't recall you mentioning any.

As I mentioned in
<http://www.w3.org/mid/p0624062ac2f3582dbb44@%5B192.168.0.101%5D>, Safari
(2.0.4) doesn't present the image, but instead the contents of <object>, when
@type is set to image/*. (If that's fixed in Safari 3, that's great :))

[...]

> I believe it does size properly to intrinsic size of an image in
> Safari 2

It does, yes. (Well, at least for the PNG I tested with.)

[...]

> I think the HTML5 recommendation will be to use <audio> and <video>
> for audio and video when possible. These provide for fallback content.

Fallback, yes. But equivalents? The current HTML5 draft speaks very
specifically of fallback only, and seems to mean <video><a href="URL">click
here</a></video>.

> Apple also has a proposal in the works for selecting one of several
> media items for <audio>/<video> based on accessibility considerations.

Looking forward to that :) Is it for <audio>/<video> exclusively, or would it
apply to stuff like <img>, <object>, <embed>, <canvas> and <table> as well?

> <embed> is there primarily for content handled by plugins. The best
> plugin markup for degrading gracefully in a wide variety of browsers
> nests <embed> in <object>

But <embed> is empty; offers no way to provide equivalents. It may be best
today, but should that really be best tomorrow?

> , and it would be unfortunate to make such
> markup non-conforming [...]

True, but we should do it in such a way that equivalents are possible.


-- 
Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>

Received on Thursday, 30 August 2007 03:37:16 UTC